Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Next.js App Router Update

nextjs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#61

Post by TheFragenTaken »

qudat wrote: post #21
aosaigh wrote: post #2

I really want to like Next.js but as a recent adopter (within the last year) I’m not sure I’m going to stick with it. I find the “new” way to write Next apps incredibly confusing. Everything is now a mix of server and client and there’s so much rendering complexity. Im sure for big ambitious companies this focus on performance is great, but I find that it greatly compromises developer experience. I’ve also found the…

I fear next.js has been infected, like many other incredibly successful projects, by the ever expanding feature-set to match the ever expanding popularity. We have seen it all before and will continue to see it again. > Any successful project will start by doing one thing, well, but end up doing many things, poorly. https://bower.sh/bowers-law

They went on a hiring spree the last two years, trying to position themselves as the React framework, or rather, the only way to use React. It's evident in React's new docs, that explicitly recommend frameworks.

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#62

Post by tough »

Escapado wrote: post #57

Lots of negativity here. I don’t share the sentiment. I have ported one project over to the app router months ago when it was still in beta with zero problems and another one is in the works using server actions and drizzle-orm to get end to end type safety. I think it’s a blast. For those complaining about the feature set growing: I think this is just a question of use-case. At my current gig we are using pretty muc…

Thanks for sharing your good sentiment here.

I would be happy to talk about NextJS and LLM's and AI if you're up for it.

Leaving my email on my profile for some days.

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#64

Post by nberlette »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #3
aosaigh wrote: post #2

I really want to like Next.js but as a recent adopter (within the last year) I’m not sure I’m going to stick with it. I find the “new” way to write Next apps incredibly confusing. Everything is now a mix of server and client and there’s so much rendering complexity. Im sure for big ambitious companies this focus on performance is great, but I find that it greatly compromises developer experience. I’ve also found the…

What's a full-stack TypeScript-based alternative that's good enough for most of us? I constantly bump into the complexity of NextJS myself, but so far I've powered through the pain.

Have you considered Deno? First class TypeScript support, secure sandboxing, and JIT rendering for React/Preact style projects with Fresh (https://fresh.deno.dev).

Also, they recently introduced a Node compatibility feature that supports _most_ modules. You can import directly from NPM using the npm: specifier, or import (almost) all of the builtin Node APIs using the standard node: specifier. Since recent versions (1.30+) of Deno are bundled with whats essentially a Node clone, and since its all packaged as a ~32MB executable... I've found myself just using Deno for everything lately. So far its been able to handle all of the projects I used to run with Node.

Check out their docs: https://deno.land/manual

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#65

Post by scrollaway »

Escapado wrote: post #57

Lots of negativity here. I don’t share the sentiment. I have ported one project over to the app router months ago when it was still in beta with zero problems and another one is in the works using server actions and drizzle-orm to get end to end type safety. I think it’s a blast. For those complaining about the feature set growing: I think this is just a question of use-case. At my current gig we are using pretty muc…

Yeah overall I like the new app router a lot. The pages structure was a mess.

It definitely could be better. They're making a pathing mess with eg. parallel routes but it's not /that/ big of a deal all in all. The problem being that when you rely on file paths for routing, you then end up having to build in all kinds of hacks and conventions in the file paths, which are just... not designed for that, they're just keys to files.

But the core of the structure and architecture is sound.

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#66

Post by michaelsalim »

I've recently started to get burnt out by Next.js. Most of its benefits stems from its SSR capabilities. However, that is also the part that is most buggy and keeps changing. It keeps improving but it just isn't there yet.

Perhaps it's because I'm leaning my focus into business now. But it's so much faster to build landing pages using old stuff like wordpress. Sure it has its downsides but it brings so much to the table. And there's so much plugins to do everything you need. Caching? 1 click install and done. SEO? Easy. Admin panel? Built in.

And say you're building a SaaS. The internal app could be whatever you want it to be. Since it's internal, there's no need to worry about SEO. At that point, I'd rather use SPA to avoid all the issues Next.js brings.

Though that's not to say Next.js is all bad. I just think it's not there yet and it may be a while until it becomes stable.

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#67

Post by NayamAmarshe »

So, are we all just ignoring the fact that the new app router is twice as slow, compared to the old pages router? [0][1]

Yet it'll replace pages router in the near future, seems like a risky situation to be in as a pages router fan.

The folder structure is also very 'angular' and opinionated. It has started to disappoint me that Next.js is becoming too opinionated as time goes on and the 'new' things are nothing but worse in performance and DX. The pages folder structure was awesome, easy to understand and manage. Now it's all just 10s of page.tsx files in your editor.

I used to love Next.js, I still do but I'm not sure if I will in the near future.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2q2gs0nAI

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hr_y1hIdZHs&t=644s

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#68

Post by NayamAmarshe »

aosaigh wrote: post #2

I really want to like Next.js but as a recent adopter (within the last year) I’m not sure I’m going to stick with it. I find the “new” way to write Next apps incredibly confusing. Everything is now a mix of server and client and there’s so much rendering complexity. Im sure for big ambitious companies this focus on performance is great, but I find that it greatly compromises developer experience. I’ve also found the…

> Im sure for big ambitious companies this focus on performance is great

On the contrary, the performance with the new method is even worse.

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#69

Post by dbbk »

Escapado wrote: post #57

Lots of negativity here. I don’t share the sentiment. I have ported one project over to the app router months ago when it was still in beta with zero problems and another one is in the works using server actions and drizzle-orm to get end to end type safety. I think it’s a blast. For those complaining about the feature set growing: I think this is just a question of use-case. At my current gig we are using pretty muc…

I just looked into the Server Actions documentation. Why is there a 'use server' inside the action if it's already running on the server? What happens if this is omitted? Why is all of this stuff so opaque?

https://nextjs.org/docs/app/building-your-application/data-f...

Re: Next.js App Router Update

#70

Post by dbbk »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #67

So, are we all just ignoring the fact that the new app router is twice as slow, compared to the old pages router? [0][1] Yet it'll replace pages router in the near future, seems like a risky situation to be in as a pages router fan. The folder structure is also very 'angular' and opinionated. It has started to disappoint me that Next.js is becoming too opinionated as time goes on and the 'new' things are nothing but…

Not only is it slower compared to pages, but we've found that upgrading Next dramatically slows down our app even if we don't have an app folder at all.
Post reply on HN